Ante Up!

  • Thread starter Thread starter wanstronian
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
W

wanstronian

Guest
Laurence Moran over at Sandwalk has offered a challenge for someone to provide a robust argument for the existence of God, prompted by an article by John Shook in the HuffPo:

Shook’s article (excerpt):
Atheists are getting a reputation for being a bunch of know-nothings. They know nothing of God, and not much more about religion, and they seem proud of their ignorance.

This reputation is a little unfair, yet when they profess how they can’t comprehend God, atheists really mean it. To listen to the loudest atheists, you can hear the bewilderment. And they just can’t believe how a thing like religion could appeal to any intelligent person. The mythological story told by atheists recounts how religion arose through vast ignorance and perversity. A plague upon humanity, really, infecting the dimwitted or foolish with viral memes about spirits and gods. If there’s no arguing with irrational people or dumb viruses, what’s to be done?

Astonished that intellectual defenses of religion are still maintained, many prominent atheists disparage theology. They either dismiss the subject as irrelevant, or, if they do bother to acknowledge it, slim refutations of outdated arguments for a medieval God seem enough. Atheists cheer on such bold leadership, but what is really being learned? Challenging religion’s immunity from criticism is one thing; perpetuating contempt for religion’s intellectual side is another. Too many followers only mimic the contempt, forgetting that you won’t effectively criticize what you would not understand. The “know-nothing” wing of the so-called New Atheism really lives up to that label. Nonbelievers reveling in their ignorance are an embarrassing betrayal of the freethought legacy.
Click to expand...
And Moran’s challenge (excerpt):
The question before us is whether there is a God or there isn’t. So far, I have not been convinced by any argument in favor of supernatural beings. Every single argument that I’ve encountered seems flawed. Many of them are stupid and nonsensical.

I am not a “know-nothing.” I’ve made a big effort to learn the latest arguments for the existence of God. I’ve attended lectures by well-known theists and by well-known accommodationists. I read their books. I read their articles. I’ve even attended courses on religion…

This brings me to my challenge. I challenge all theists and all their accommodationist friends to post their very best 21st century, sophisticated (or not), arguments for the existence of God. They can put them in the comments section of this posting, or on any of the other atheist blogs, or on their own blogs and websites. Just send me the link.

Try and make it concise and to the point. It would be nice if it’s less than 100 years old. Keep in mind that there are over 1000 different gods so it would be helpful to explain just which gods the argument applies to.

I don’t care where they post the argument, just get on with it. I’m not interested in any other details about theology. Those points only become relevant once you’ve convinced this atheist that you have a rational argument for the existence of God. Don’t bother telling me how you reconcile your God with evil, or why you believe in miracles, or why transcendence is important in your life, or how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Don’t insult my intelligence by pointing out that religion has done a lot of good things in the past as if that were proof of the existence of the supernatural. Don’t be silly enough to try proving god by telling me that religion makes people feel good. So does chocolate, and wine.

Let’s stop the whining about how “know-nothing” atheists are ignoring the very best arguments for the existence of God. Come on, all you theists and accommodationists, put your money where your mouth is. Give us something of substance instead of hiding behind The Courtier’s Reply. Let’s see the angels.
Click to expand...
Thought I’d open it up to the floor here.
 
  1. The most adequate and economical explanation of conscious, rational, purposeful, moral and autonomous beings is one Supreme, conscious, rational, purposeful, moral and autonomous Being rather than impersonal events which lack consciousness, rationality, purpose, morality, autonomy and responsibility.
  2. The most adequate and economical explanation of reality is in terms of its highest aspects: truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love which converge in the Supreme Being.
  3. The immense value of existence is the result of benevolent Design rather than blind events.
 
tonyrey said:
  1. The most adequate and economical explanation of conscious, rational, purposeful, moral and autonomous beings is one Supreme, conscious, rational, purposeful, moral and autonomous Being rather than impersonal events which lack consciousness, rationality, purpose, morality, autonomy and responsibility.
  2. The most adequate and economical explanation of reality is in terms of its highest aspects: truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love which converge in the Supreme Being.
  3. The immense value of existence is the result of benevolent Design rather than blind events.
Click to expand...
Think Moran was after an argument, not just a set of baseless assertions, but I’ll post the link back to him. Thanks
 
Friedrich Nietzche’s works claim that since there is no God, then all morals are relative and might makes right. Hitler, Stalin, and Mao took this to heart, and killed millions. Many atheists claim moral superiority while simaltaneously touting themselves as morally superior to theists. This is a dead-to-rights contradiction. No intellectually honest atheist will deny this.

And it’s funny when atheists call theists “immature”. It’s not that an atheist believes nothing, but rather, he will believe anything. The naturalist wants man to see himself as the ultimate good, and “if it feels good, do it”. How is that not the mentality of an immature, egocentric toddler?

Meanwhile, to be a man of faith requires integrity. His goal in life is to love his Creator with all his heart and to love his fellow man as himself. He knows that the universe does not revolve around himself and that there are other people in the world. He can’t always have what he wants, and he accepts that. Why? Because there is a higher good than his own selfish desires.

With religion, civilization thrives, and man unlocks the full potential that God has blessed him with. Without religion, man is just another stupid, worthless animal, going by his “instincts”.

Come on, all you nonbelievers, and answer this: are you going to let some otherwise inert chemicals control you? Or are you going to man up and show your body who’s boss?
 
JackVk said:
Friedrich Nietzche’s works claim that since there is no God, then all morals are relative and might makes right. Hitler, Stalin, and Mao took this to heart, and killed millions. Many atheists claim moral superiority while simaltaneously touting themselves as morally superior to theists. This is a dead-to-rights contradiction. No intellectually honest atheist will deny this.

And it’s funny when atheists call theists “immature”. It’s not that an atheist believes nothing, but rather, he will believe anything. The naturalist wants man to see himself as the ultimate good, and “if it feels good, do it”. How is that not the mentality of an immature, egocentric toddler?

Meanwhile, to be a man of faith requires integrity. His goal in life is to love his Creator with all his heart and to love his fellow man as himself. He knows that the universe does not revolve around himself and that there are other people in the world. He can’t always have what he wants, and he accepts that. Why? Because there is a higher good than his own selfish desires.

With religion, civilization thrives, and man unlocks the full potential that God has blessed him with. Without religion, man is just another stupid, worthless animal, going by his “instincts”.

Come on, all you nonbelievers, and answer this: are you going to let some otherwise inert chemicals control you? Or are you going to man up and show your body who’s boss?
Click to expand...
Not being funny - did you mean to post in this thread? Or did you just not read the ‘rules’ in Moran’s challenge?
 
wanstronian said:
Not being funny - did you mean to post in this thread? Or did you just not read the ‘rules’ in Moran’s challenge?
Click to expand...
I’m not trying to be funny. I’m just stating facts.

Moran’s challenge is a gridlocked one. It says “prove God exists without using any teachings of the Church”. Here’s my challenge to Moran: prove God does not exist. Use the scientific method to prove God does not exist.
 
wanstronian said:
Thought I’d open it up to the floor here.
Click to expand...
Oh, that is funny. 🙂 It reminds me of James (the Amazing) Randi’s challenge to all those who believe in some kind of “paranormal” to demonstrate their claim, and even offered a million bucks for a successful demonstration. There are very few takers, and so far no winners. Somehow I am not surprised. Moran’s challenge will go the same way…
 
JackVk said:
I’m not trying to be funny. I’m just stating facts.

Moran’s challenge is a gridlocked one. It says “prove God exists without using any teachings of the Church”.
Click to expand...
Which seems perfectly reasonable. The teachings of the church assume that God exists. The presumption of one’s conclusion is not a reasonable basis from which to launch a proof of that conclusion.

If you can’t stick to the challenge criteria, don’t respond. To respond with The Courtier’s Reply only strengthens Moran’s point.
Here’s my challenge to Moran: prove God does not exist. Use the scientific method to prove God does not exist.
Click to expand...
Oh for crying out loud - when will you eejits realise that this is a stupid argument? It’s like me challenging you to prove that I’m not eating a banana. Get real.
 
JackVk said:
Friedrich Nietzche’s works claim that since there is no God, then all morals are relative and might makes right.
Click to expand...
“Might makes right” is a pretty bizarre interpretation of Nietzsche, which demonstrates that you have likely not read even one of his books.
a man of faith …] knows that the universe does not revolve around himself and that there are other people in the world. He can’t always have what he wants, and he accepts that.
Click to expand...
You’ve just described a mature and well-adjusted person, regardless of whether or not that person has faith in anything supernatural.

Anyway, this “challenge” is not going to turn out very interesting. You’ll get a first cause argument, an argument from fine tuning, an argument from the anthropic principle, a differently-worded version of a cosmological argument.

The only other common argument is to assume that the only options are either current scientific opinion or god-did-it. Then, you ineptly try to rebutt some piece of science that you really don’t understand and claim that that “proves” god.
 
AntiTheist said:
“Might makes right” is a pretty bizarre interpretation of Nietzsche, which demonstrates that you have likely not read even one of his books.

You’ve just described a mature and well-adjusted person, regardless of whether or not that person has faith in anything supernatural.

Anyway, this “challenge” is not going to turn out very interesting. You’ll get a first cause argument, an argument from fine tuning, an argument from the anthropic principle, a differently-worded version of a cosmological argument.

The only other common argument is to assume that the only options are either current scientific opinion or god-did-it. Then, you ineptly try to rebutt some piece of science that you really don’t understand and claim that that “proves” god.
Click to expand...
Are your arguments so different? It’s usually a well-accepted scientific fact that constitutes a strawman, albeit one that would convince the poorly cathechized. Take for example, Dawkins’ “objection” to Aquinas’ 5 proofs in the God Delusion. He does nothing except describe the nature of subatomic particles without even explaining the details of Aquinas’s proofs.
 
wanstronian said:
Think Moran was after an argument, not just a set of baseless assertions, but I’ll post the link back to him. Thanks
Click to expand...
It was an argument. We have a particular type of data that is not consistent with the nature of natural causes, and thus God, a rational cause, makes the best sense of that data.

You can of course choose to ignore that answer by saying that we cannot be certain, or you can take the answer out of context by giving a physics of the gaps argument. But the fact remains that this same skeptical reply isn’t given to arguments which do not have God as the qualifying answer. Surprise surprise we live in a world where some people dislike the idea of God being the ultimate answer to existence.

So i think a religious person or an accommodationalist is correct in being suspicious that there may very well be a certain degree of dishonesty or perhaps even lazy thinking on the part of the militant atheist.
 
wanstronian said:
Get real.
Click to expand...
Never having seen a conclusive argument for or against God, the best I have is for Moran to consider another point.

As a species, we seem to have a proclivity to believe in a force or agency beyond ourselves. In discussions with atheists for example, I was surprised at how many said they believe in ghosts or reincarnation. They didn’t believe in god(s) but still found a need.

Looked at neutrally, none of this can be used to indicate the necessary presence of supernatural agencies, but it does also say something about us. The need may be tribal, and may even be outmoded in modern society, but in evolutionary timescales it’s not likely to go away anytime soon. Then again it may be cultural, a hang-over from a pre-scientific world, but probably not given that it seems to be hanging around even among many of the highly educated (again, not necessarily belief in God but in agencies in general).

The argument would then be whether “pure” atheism acknowledges reality or is an idealism (yet another faith, if you like :)).
 
inocente said:
The argument would then be whether “pure” atheism acknowledges reality or is an idealism (yet another faith, if you like :)).
Click to expand...
Atheism acknowledges reality without being able to account for it adequately…
 
MindOverMatter2 said:
It was an argument. We have a particular type of data that is not consistent with the nature of natural causes, and thus God, a rational cause, makes the best sense of that data.

You can of course choose to ignore that answer by saying that we cannot be certain, or you can take the answer out of context by giving a physics of the gaps argument. But the fact remains that this same skeptical reply isn’t given to arguments which do not have God as the qualifying answer. Surprise surprise we live in a world where some people dislike the idea of God being the ultimate answer to existence.

So i think a religious person or an accommodationalist is correct in being suspicious that there may very well be a certain degree of dishonesty or perhaps even lazy thinking on the part of the militant atheist.
Click to expand...
The more virulent their attack the more vulnerable they become…
 
tonyrey said:
  1. The most adequate and economical explanation of conscious, rational, purposeful, moral and autonomous beings is one Supreme, conscious, rational, purposeful, moral and autonomous Being rather than impersonal events which lack consciousness, rationality, purpose, morality, autonomy and responsibility.
  2. The most adequate and economical explanation of reality is in terms of its highest aspects: truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love which converge in the Supreme Being.
  3. The immense value of existence is the result of benevolent Design rather than blind events.
Click to expand...
So far no one has produced a superior explanation…or refuted the above statements…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top